Lists Home |
Date Index |
absolutely an infoset is a taxonomy, but not the one i'm interested in.
if i can use animals as an example - the infoset is like a definition of
an animal parts being skeleton, eyes, ears, legs, etc
the taxonomy i'm interested in is like the one that says "an
invertebrate is an animal without a supporting skeletal structure" etc
we have the start of this in the definition of well-formed xml, and
well-formed relative to a particular dtd or schema
or we might want to look at the set of all xml documents that don't use
attributes, all the set of all xml documents where element ordering is
irrelevant (we had a thread on that somewhere).
then we can assert or prove the existence or otherwise of a successor
function; commutative, associative, and distributive laws; and then we
might know if and when we can simplify documents; or index them; etc
this sort of information would be a very big help to developers. just
look at how natural it now seems to assume operator precedence in
arithmetic, or how knowledge of identity functions and truth tables help
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 23:49, NordstrÃ¶m Ari wrote:
> Isn't XML Information Set what you want here (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/). Taxonomy is defined as the "science and practise of classification" (in my convenient dictionary application), and as far as I understand, that's what the XML Infoset is for.
> Rick Marshall wrote...
> > hi all
> > following several discussions we've had lately, mostly on relational
> > models and document management i'm going to float the idea - which may
> > be covered elsewhere, please redirect me if appropriate -
> > that having a
> > taxonomy of xml may help us to understand what forms, and
> > when are good
> > for different problems.
> > if we take numbers as an analogy (and that's all it is, there
> > are plenty
> > of others) they can be divided into sets - integer, real, rational,
> > irrational, complex, etc and we increase our understanding and use of
> > numbers by developing theorems that cover the different sets.
> > it seems to me that xml is as diverse as numbers or any
> > similar grouping
> > and that by focusing on well defined sets of xml structures and their
> > properties we can get the theorems to improve our use and
> > understanding.
> > eg one set might be xml with tags only - no attributes;
> > another might be
> > xml that is constrained to two levels; etc
> > by understanding the properties and operators that are valid on these
> > sets we can then see the analogies to other technologies such as
> > relational models, markup, etc.
> > just a thought at the moment
> > cheers
> > rick
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>